American Psychological Association President responds to members upset about psychologists’ participation in Guantanamo interrogations
June 12th, 2006
Gerald Koocher, President of the American Psychological Association, is sending the following email to those members who protested APA support for psychologists’ participation in the hell that is Guantanamo [For my original email to him and the APA CEO go here.]:
The APA Board of Directors understands and appreciates that its members have strong opinions about psychologists’ involvement in interrogations, and that their opinions are not uniform. Please recognize that interrogation does not equate to torture and that many civilian and military contexts exist in which psychologists ethically participate in information gathering in the public interest without harming anyone or violating our ethical code. Please also examine press reports with healthy skepticism and seek facts, rather than reflexively engaging in letter-writing campaigns predicated on inadequate access to the data.
The Board has adopted as APA policy a Task Force Report, which unequivocally prohibits psychologists from engaging in, participating, or countenancing torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. As the basis for its position, the Task Force looked first to Principle A in the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, “Do No Harm,” and then to Principle B, which addresses psychologists’ responsibilities to society. Both ethical responsibilities are central to the profession of psychology. By virtue of Principle A, psychologists do no harm. By virtue of Principle B, psychologists use their expertise in, and understanding of, human behavior to aid in the prevention of harm.
In both domestic and national security-related contexts, these ethical principles converge as psychologists are mandated to take affirmative steps to prevent harm to individuals being questioned and, at the same time, to assist in eliciting reliable information that may prevent harm to others.
It is critical to note that in addressing these issues through a Task Force report, the American Psychological Association was responding to psychologists in national security settings who had approached APA seeking guidance in the most ethical course of action. The Board views as its responsibility supporting our colleagues and members who are striving to do the right thing. The Board encourages its members who have different points of view on this or any issue to make their positions known, and welcomes the opportunity for further discussion of this issue at the August Council meeting.
Here is my reply to this disgusting statement:
Dear Dr. Koocher,
Thank you for your reply to my recent email regarding the American Psychological Association’s condoning of psychologists’ particpation in “coercive interrogations”, aka, torture, at Guantanamo and similar secret facilities. Would you please explain on what basis the APA knows better than the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, the UN Committee on Torture, or Amnesty International, among dozens of international organizations that, in these total institutions, “interrogation does not equate to torture”? As you are no doubt aware, these organizations have unanimously stated that what occurs at Guantanamo IS torture? Has APA been able to conduct the type of onsight investigation, including private interviews with detainees, that have been denied the United Nations and other organizations?
On what basis do you make the assertion that to “assist in eliciting reliable information that may prevent harm to others?” As you are no doubt aware, there is extensive evidence that participation in torture does NOT lead to “reliable information.” And even if it did, is it now APA policy that psychologists may particpate in illegal activity in order to POSSIBLY (I note your “may”) “prevent harm to others?” For, as you are no doubt aware, numerous international organizations, including the two United Nations committees mentioned, have made clear that the existence of Guantanamo is illegal under international law. You are also no doubt aware that the Secretary General of the United Nations has called for the closing of Guantanamo.
You further state that “The Board views as its responsibility supporting our colleagues and members who are striving to do the right thing.” What in the world is this “right thing” our collegaues are “striving to do?” I assume it is protecting their careers while still being able to sleep at night. And why is supporting their “striving” more important than they, or APA ,actually doing the right thing? That is, why is “supporting our colleagues” a greater responsibility than protecting the hundreds of people who have been locked away, perhaps forever, in “the gulag of our time?”
The final question I have to ask is: is there anything at all that APA won’t do to preserve its access to those with power?
Your in disgust and shame,
Stephen Soldz
Director, Center for Research, Evaluation, and Program Development
Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis
1581 Beacon St.
Brookline, MA 02446
ssoldz@bgsp.edu
Entry Filed under: Psychology, Rights and Liberties, Social Issues, Torture
4 Comments Add your own
1. Thomas Golden, Ph.D. | June 13th, 2006 at 1:32 am
Dr. Soldz,
I applaud your commentary, and your response to the APA administration. Clearly, the APA, as represented by the President Koocher, totally disregards the futile nature of “the war”, the hopelessness of the illegally detained prisoners, the revelations of the Abu Garab prison abuse, the constant deceits, negations, avoidances and the arrogance of the Bush Administration. The APA should be denouncing any and all participation in the imprisonment, without due process of “enemy combatants”. The APA should be on the forefront of professional organizations in demanding an immediate end to the slaughter of persons on all sides of the Iraq conflict. What novel, and substantive informatioin can be ellcited from prisoners who have been incarcerated for several years, and most likely to have been questioned by “the best” the CIA, and other inqusitors have available. Which Psychologists are capable of “getting blood from a stone?”
Dr. Koocher’s suggestion that Psychologists are obliged to protect the individual from unethical behavior is certainly a worthy goal, but his attempt to justify some nonspecific , “assistance” that might “prevent harm to others” is a slander against a profession that I have practiced for 36
years.
Thomas Golden, Ph.D.
Clinical Psychologist
2. Langdon | June 29th, 2006 at 3:06 am
Bravissimo! As a psychiatric nurse, an analysand in Jungian analysis, and most importantly a human being, I thank you. Your courage is remarkable. You’ve given me just a bit more hope. Keep up the wonderful work. And better yet - keep blogging!!!
3. Dr. William A. Fraenkel | July 4th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
I am in full support of the letter Psychologists for Socail Responsibility sent you dated June 21, 2006. I have been a member of APA for 50 years and am ashamed to say that we psychologists are only paying lip service to the substance of this letter, including your office and all of the Divisions within APA. We become worse than the terrorists when we deny suspects their right for a trial and to be told the reasons for being suspect. Let us be straightforward about the war on terrorism which I and many of my psychologists friends and assocaites decry. If we are to have a true and enduring peace in this world we must be honest with ourselves and live out the policies and principles and by-laws of APA, not pay lip service to them! It is my belief that those psychologists who are working for the military and or aiding and abetting the use of their training and skills in such places as Guantanamo Bay Cuba or other places of Rendition ought to be thrown out of the APA. Let us not be in denial nor waffle on this matter as we live in very dangerous times with the threat of nuclear war ever present as well as other known weapons of mass destruction in countries we have no meaningul unbiased relationships with, and some of which countries we have supplied same with expertise in such types of warfare for the almighty buck! Let us be open and honest and truthful about our aims and goals as psychologists which follow ‘the prevention of harm to others’ as our embodiment. Pax.
4. Dr. William A. Fraenkel | July 4th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
P. S. In my previous e-mail to the President of the American Psychological Association I neglected to say that I am a former USMarine combat veteran, infantryman, during World War II and one who saw three major battles against the enemy, Japan, on pacific islands starting with Kwajalein, an atoll in the Marshall Islands, Saipan in the Mariana Islands where I was wounded in action and had to be medivacced by ship The USS Hope to another island Enniwetok, where they had better medical facilities and then to Hawaii for rest and rehabilitation, and then Iwo Jima, the worst recorded battle in the history of the Marine Corps.
I can tell you and anyone who wants to listen that war is worse than any hell I can imagine. It is outdated what with our modern Armageddon type destructive weapons that abound. I have seen death too often to ever forget the sight and sounds and smells and cries of the wounded on both sides to ever want to be a part of any new war. As psychologists we are sworn to work towards reconciliation ‘after we joined up’ in APA… and to do no harm!!!!! We must defend our nation, of course, but we must first learn how to respect and trust other nations and help all member states of the United Nations join together in peaceful ways with no hidden agendas. There are enough serious world wide problems we can and should pay more attention to besides our own ambitions. Being any part of an armed conflict to achieve these goals must be removed from our plans and aspirations. Peace Now was a key phrase during the sixties but it still resonates with me today. How about you?
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed